Remove ads

General Exalted Thread

Reader mode
vicky_molokh said:
My point is that people are quick to claim that the grand assembly of examples support their view of the setting. And quick to make conclusions based on those examples. Even though they seem to have already decided what sort of conclusion they want to make. Even when those examples are that something that doesn't exist (or exists despite being claimed not to), or doesn't apply, or has a counterexample.

Such as claiming that a Mote is not equal to the Mote that scholars talk about. Even though it's the only definition of a mote. Even though there is a monologue of a character talking about spending a Mote in order to get a Hard Mote that can be used in place of Committing a Mote.
Such as claiming that Charms are not something that exists in the setting and/or isn't realised by characters. Even though there is a character saying that medical care is cheaper than the payment for a Solar using a Charm to heal someone, and that Eclipses explicitly need to seek out a tutor knowing Charm X in order to learn (non-Solar) Charm X.
Such as claiming that Triremes are in the setting by mistake, because nobody told the authors that they don't fit in. Even though by now authors definitely have been told, but they don't care (and likely never did), because
Such as claiming that all the game mechanics need to be seen as invented in 1991 in VtM. Even though some of the bits were not developed until VtM Revised, in 1998.
Such as claiming that some things as a 'stupid 2e addition' (not exact words). Even though those things turn out to date back to 1e.

All of this looks like a memory of some perfect unified mold that was never actually true. Anything that contradicts this imaginary vision is struck from memory, and quoting evidence contradicting this imaginary vision is grounds for being dismissed as not conforming to this imaginary vision.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Oh, so you're declaring that everyone else is being deliberately dishonest because you can find single, minor quibbles which may contradict certain claims made, despite not actually at all affecting the greater thrust of the argument.

BTW: @EarthScorpion said, and I quote:

EarthScorpion said:
No, that brings up "at heart, a lot of Exalted's system was designed in 1991 for the purposes of playing vampires and the design assumptions were not challenged".

The Bashing/Lethal/Aggravated must be viewed in a Vampire context, where bashing damage is "stuff that doesn't threaten vampires much" (like blunt instruments and bullets), lethal damage is "stuff that threatens vampires" (like people armed with katanas), and aggravated damage is "THE DAYSTAR IT BURNS OUR CURSED FLESH". Vampires all have innate healing just by spending blood points, and the cost to heal a health level is based on the type of damage in question.

As @MJ12 Commando has mentioned before, the Exalted system must be viewed in context of previous White Wolf products (both previous Exalted and non-Exalted things), because it's riddled with legacy code and things which were implemented to fix previous defects but introduced regression and unexpected behaviour.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Your 'counterargument' is quibbling about whether bashing damage was a thing in 1991, without actually engaging in the actual thrust of the argument, deciding instead that a single arbitrary example definitively establishes your position as correct. Similarly, other people's arguments against your point is "if this was true, we would see X effect on the setting. We do not see X effect on the setting, ergo this is not true." Again, your counterargument isn't actually addressing this claim, but quibbling about minor details.
 
Or, in simpler and less aggressive terms; yeah, maybe the Bashing/Lethal distinction was introduced in 1998 was 1991. But since both of these occasions are multiple years before Exalted 1e was published, what does this correction actually matter to the assertion that the rule is in Exalted as WoD legacy code?
 
Last edited:
MJ12 Commando said:
Oh, so you're declaring that everyone else is being deliberately dishonest because you can find single, minor quibbles which may contradict certain claims made, despite not actually at all affecting the greater thrust of the argument.

BTW: @EarthScorpion said, and I quote:



Your 'counterargument' is quibbling about whether bashing damage was a thing in 1991, without actually engaging in the actual thrust of the argument, deciding instead that a single arbitrary example definitively establishes your position as correct. Similarly, other people's arguments against your point is "if this was true, we would see X effect on the setting. We do not see X effect on the setting, ergo this is not true." Again, your counterargument isn't actually addressing this claim, but quibbling about minor details.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm saying that people are quick to judge, or to misremember/forget evidence if it suits their conclusions. And make claims of a grand harmonious vision even when presented with evidence that even if the grand vision exists at all (which seems not quite likely, if one were to apply WW's WoD precedent), it is not harmonious, or at least not in the way they envision. I'm saying it's easy to blame things on integration of VtM mechanics, even though said VtM mechanics post-date the creation of Exalted; there are other signs that the original game-mech of ST was reexamined and re-evaluated, because parts of it have be changed quite drastically (e.g. DVs, Virtues, damage rolls, damage rolls against mooks, difficulty mechanics etc.). I'm saying that people have headcanons, and not being a follower of a similar headcanon means being a vile heretical anathema (apparently, based on the reactions to one).
When I found an explicit effect on the setting (the invention of an item that performs the commitment of one mote instead of the item's user), it apparently doesn't count. Because the goalposts have moved and now I need to find twenty effects on the setting instead of one or two? If some setting's write-up only mentions chopsticks once, does it mean that we have to conclude that nobody uses chopsticks in the setting other than the one character we've seen use them?

Imrix said:
Or, in simpler terms; yeah, maybe the Bashing/Lethal distinction was introduced in 1998 was 1991. But since both of these occasions are multiple years before Exalted 1e was published, what does this correction actually matter to the assertion that the rule is in Exalted as WoD legacy code?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I kinda assumed that work on Exalted started perhaps at least a half-decade before its publication. But you're right, that's a baseless preconception on my part. Touché.

sebsmith said:
Fixed that for you.

But seriously, GNS terminology is terrible. It's primary purpose is not to describe RPGs, but instead to start Internet fights. (Source)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Interesting. Thanks. By comparison, what do you think of this categorisation?
 
Last edited:
Can we stop this discussion, please? It is going nowhere, and frankly, people here are being way too aggresive with vicky_molokh. Different people have different ideas of the setting (Something that is completely normal, given how incoherent the canon is). End of the story.

Can someone offer something more interesting to talk about, please?
 
sebsmith said:
Having only skimmed it, it appears to be a thought on what players are like, as opposed to research on what players are like. Personally, the latter is far more useful, especially when we have it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Interesting. I find it unexpected that they have 'Strong Characters and Exciting Story' as a single core value, not two. Because I've seen examples of situations where character strength (agency, adherence to original characterisation etc.) are being compromised in favour of supporting an exciting story. IIRC there was some sort of reaction to Return of the Scarlet Empress as a book which performed this sort of sacrifice. (I'm also inclined to believe that the other extreme is possible, but am not as familiar with it.)
 
Last edited:
Walker of the Yellow Path said:
If you summon and bind a Second Circle Demon, could you order it to begin making new races of First Circle Demons for your use?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Honestly, depending on the edition you don't really need to go second circle. In 3e games you could design your own with appropriate sorcerous rituals (though I suggest that Finnese 1 to let the ST make them will make them happier). In both editions, provided you've got access to an appropriate amount of raw materials and don't mind it taking a while, you can always have a Sufficient Number of Neomah designing and producing until you find a recipe you like.
 
vicky_molokh said:
When I found an explicit effect on the setting (the invention of an item that performs the commitment of one mote instead of the item's user), it apparently doesn't count. Because the goalposts have moved and now I need to find twenty effects on the setting instead of one or two? If some setting's write-up only mentions chopsticks once, does it mean that we have to conclude that nobody uses chopsticks in the setting other than the one character we've seen use them?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Look, here's the problem you're having, which I mentioned earlier with that comment about the writer's intent argument not working, but will now examine in greater detail.

Let me use an analogy, because I'm fairly certain most everyone here would be familiar with this: you're using citations from a discredited journal or a fradulent paper. For example, if you attempted to make claims in biology based on that fradulent Japanese STAP cell paper, you'd get laughed at, because that source has no weight, it is known to be fradulent.

Similarly, because of 2E's known complete lack of quality control and resulting low quality, 2E is an untrustworthy source. Pulling individual examples out of 2E sourcebooks to prove something will get absolutely nowhere, because 2E sourcebooks are not given respect/authority: the core assumption here is that if something dumb shows up in a 2E sourcebook, it's... something dumb, which is probably there because the writer didn't give a shit and neither did the editor, rather than some sort of grand vision of kitchen sink coolness. Exceptions exist where we know the writer gave a shit and knew what they were doing, but those are precisely that: exceptions.

About the only thing you're actually managing to accomplish here by citing sourcebooks is giving everyone more examples of 2E having no quality control. This form of argument isn't going to get you any victories, since for it to work you'd need to convince everyone in the thread to start treating 2E books like they have authoritative weight again. Given that 2E lost that status for a good reason, that isn't likely to happen.

Keep in mind that a lot of posters here played 1E, where we actually had a line developer who gave a shit.
 
Last edited:
Jon Chung said:
*snip*

Keep in mind that a lot of posters here played 1E, where we actually had a line developer who gave a shit.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Uh, so I haven't really read a lot of 1E material myself, though I'm given to understand that the aspect and caste books were largely pretty boss. There's also the oft-cited Scavenger Sons, Games of Divinity, and Manacle and Coin that are all held up as being great. However, I also hear that 1E Lunars were kind of a steaming pile and the basic combat was even less functional than in 2E. Something about persistent DV's getting stupid high and no one being able to do anything about it? Having a line developer that gave a shit may have flipped the ratio between awful and excellent as compared to 2E, but it seems like the line has always had a fine tradition of needing to ignore the shitty parts.
 
Last edited:
SerGregness said:
However, I also hear that 1E Lunars were kind of a steaming pile and the basic combat was even less functional than in 2E. Something about persistent DV's getting stupid high and no one being able to do anything about it? Having a line developer that gave a shit may have flipped the ratio between awful and excellent as compared to 2E, but it seems like the line has always had a fine tradition of needing to ignore the shitty parts.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yep.
 
SerGregness said:
Uh, so I haven't really read a lot of 1E material myself, though I'm given to understand that the aspect and caste books were largely pretty boss. There's also the oft-cited Scavenger Sons, Games of Divinity, and Manacle and Coin that are all held up as being great.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah, pretty much. Get Scavenger Sons and Games of Divinity if you haven't read them yet. Shit's good.

SerGregness said:
However, I also hear that 1E Lunars were kind of a steaming pile and the basic combat was even less functional than in 2E. Something about persistent DV's getting stupid high and no one being able to do anything about it?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Sort of. Different kind of problem. 1E's combat, unlike 2E's, was not lethal enough - it was trivially possible to get passive defense twice as good as passive offense, and active offense was filtered through and perfected away like with 2E's 2-7 filter, resulting in fights that stalemated into "roll dice until you get lucky and cause ping damage". They overcompensated, heh.

And Sidereals broke the combat metagame because RSB was not told to balance around PvP and wrote a laser-focused Siddie PCs-only game, so, yeah, that kinda sucked.

SerGregness said:
Having a line developer that gave a shit may have flipped the ratio between awful and excellent as compared to 2E, but it seems like the line has always had a fine tradition of needing to ignore the shitty parts.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Sure. But look, there's a big difference between "Yeah, Lunars 1E was bullshit and Sidereals ruin non-Sidereal games" and "Everything in the fucking line except..."
 
Last edited:
Is Even Blade Style a useful style for Terrestrials? (Yes, I know, Scroll of the Monk is bad)

Is it underpowered, overpowered, or decent?

It seems like a fun style for some of my character concepts. (DB duelist or wandering Solar pretending to be an Enlightened Mortal.)
 
SerGregness said:
. However, I also hear that 1E Lunars were kind of a steaming pile and the basic combat was even less functional than in 2E. Something about persistent DV's getting stupid high and no one being able to do anything about it?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Not more broken, just broken in an entirely different way. Combat was still a solved problem, but it was solved in a manner that made resolution entirely random (that is to the point where once your defenses were up your decisions basically didn't matter) instead of the hard mechanical certainty of 2Es paranoia combo attrition.

Walker of the Yellow Path said:
Is Even Blade Style a useful style for Terrestrials? (Yes, I know, Scroll of the Monk is bad)

Is it underpowered, overpowered, or decent?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It is overpowered as a terrestrial style. It might work as a Celestial style if you bumped all the Essence minimums up 1 or 2 points.
 
C.o.S.a.R said:
Isn't even blade the style that has a charm(s) superior to Solar melee?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No, but IIRC the counterattack charms were compared to Water Dragon Style and the form charm outright didn't work with 2e tick combat as written. Let me see if I can't find the thread referencing it being OP (hell, I think it was Chung that analyzed it the first time round)...nope, seems to have died with the WW forums.

The biggest outlier that I can remember is/was Gruesome Wood King Revelry, which is outright comparable to an Abyssal charm.

EDIT: No, wait, here it is.
 
Last edited:
I rewrote Even Blade Style, sort of; I had to discard much of it because it's not very well-designed. The final product might still be too strong for a TMA, but I honestly cannot be arsed to write Charms even weaker than these.
 
Hmm.

I wonder if picking up seven charms (over three essence dots) counts as a 'splash' or not.

Trying to decide if a long term project of infiltrating the brides of Alhat would work for Serfina's game (very long term, assuming I haven't managed to dissolve them by then.)
 
Sucal said:
3e Sorcerous initiations are cool, anyone got some cool ideas for necromantic themed ones?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Take a pilgrimage to the Underworld, eating of its bittersweet pomegranates and drinking of its dark waters. Gain sorcerous motes in graveyards and other places of death.

Drink the lifeblood of a behemoth and be enlightened by the understanding of such a creature's death. Gain sorcerous motes by knocking back that horrorshow kroovy.

Be blessed and tutored by your fallen ancestors so that you may follow in the traditions of your line. Gain sorcerous motes when you make the proper prayers and obeisances to your honored forefathers.
Walker of the Yellow Path said:
If you summon and bind a Second Circle Demon, could you order it to begin making new races of First Circle Demons for your use?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think the better question is whether those First Circles will be bound themselves.
 
SerGregness said:
Uh, so I haven't really read a lot of 1E material myself, though I'm given to understand that the aspect and caste books were largely pretty boss. There's also the oft-cited Scavenger Sons, Games of Divinity, and Manacle and Coin that are all held up as being great. However, I also hear that 1E Lunars were kind of a steaming pile and the basic combat was even less functional than in 2E. Something about persistent DV's getting stupid high and no one being able to do anything about it? Having a line developer that gave a shit may have flipped the ratio between awful and excellent as compared to 2E, but it seems like the line has always had a fine tradition of needing to ignore the shitty parts.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

1E Lunars was a steaming pile because they had a strictly defined role as Furry Anti-Civilization Barbarian Lords, i.e. basically taking from oWolf, but oWolf had its own thematic incoherency issues which led to the game not having any actual themes once the specific werewolf powers were stripped out.

People don't remember oWolf powers. They remember oVamp powers, and oMage spheres, because those were evocative and did cool things, but oWolf powers were a huge grab bag. Who remembers that oWoD werewolves could turn into living metal? Or could summon the Fenris Wolf at the cost of their arm? Or had swords which shat out spirit wolves? (You may notice a bit of a space wolf theme going on). This led to, well, the obvious problem.

Abyssals at least had "this is like the Solar equivalent but spooky" to go on and were, well, still vampires. Just ones which were a bit less 'sexy vampire' and more 'apocalyptic harbinger of doom' vampire.

Your argument confuses "has shitty parts" with "is fundamentally incoherent." People are not dismissing 2E as a useful source because it has shitty parts. People are dismissing it because it's fundamentally incoherent.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top